Now remember that someday the tables will turn. Someday the bad orange man‘s side will have control of the media, and I expect you to support when they suppress the other side’s speech just as it was done to them today. Because we all know freedom of speech is good except when the other side has it.
For example, I tend to be slightly on the side of the death penalty. That means I have to imagine that a loved one of mine could be falsely accused of a crime and be executed for it. It would be morally reprehensible for me not to imagine all consequences of something I believe in.
Likewise, anyone against the death penalty should imagine the case, for example, where their own children are killed and the murderer isn’t punished similarly.
There are usually principle of arguments on both sides and I feel it’s important for me to account for them.
Twitter's censorship is just one aspect of the issue. Talented philosophers, scientists, etc. are being excluded from mainstream society (forced out of their education, employment, etc.) for having the wrong opinions. Many of the smartest people I know exist almost entirely outside of established institutions. Not a good situation. Very sad that people have so much respect for those in power.
I happen to feel the same way about his predecessor. But I always supported Obama‘s use of the bully pulpit. Even though I agreed with very little of his core politics, I feel it’s the right of the president to use freedom of speech, period.
Also, regarding morality. Because I believe in freedom of speech, I support the right of people to write and say immoral things. Even reprehensible things. And if we choose to suppress such speech, we should expect it to go underground and fester and explode painfully at the worst possible time.
Much better in my view that these things be examined and rebutted in the public sphere.
If I was a lawyer I would have done that if that's what I was employed to do.
Hayes code seems irrelevant: what was being discussed was people feeling less positive about censorship when those who they thought were moral were being censored (rather than those thought to be immoral).
> would you have defended the neo-nazis right to march down Skokie's Main Street where tons of Holocaust survivors settled down after escaping Germany?
I would do it in a heartbeat. Of course I detest racism. Of course I think those marches were an act of evil. But the test of a freedom-loving people is how we protect the despised, not how we protect the majority. If we don't protect the freedoms of those we dislike, we will lose our own freedoms soon enough.
It's not about the people we dislike, it's about how those people - or anyone - acts, and the results of those actions. I still disapprove regardless of who it is who wants to march under a Nazi banner.
Maybe society should have concerns not only along the lines of freedom. Or at least, to integrate both positive and negative liberty. Other Western democratic nations have balanced freedom and dignity quite well.
For the record, I lean conservative/libertarian on most issues
> Twitter allows the accounts of 99% of republicans to go completely uncensored.
Well that’s damn good of them.